Tuesday, March 18, 2008

The BLAIR Family Speaks

Dear Disney Executives,

It has recently been brought to my attention that the Walt Disney Company including WDI has proposed changes to the “It’s a Small World Ride” at the Disneyland Park in Anaheim. As I understand the changes include the addition of the Disney Characters (Mickey, Minnie, Lilo & Stitch, etc.) to the ride in select areas, and the replacement of the “Rainforest” section with Mickey Mouse in a tribute entitled “Up with America”. I also understand that the boats and trough they ride in will be expanded for the safety and comfort of the parks modern day guests.

While I fully understand and support the upgrade to the boats as a necessary safety upgrade, the addition of the Disney Characters and the “Up with America” section I do NOT support as it represents a gross desecration of the ride's original theme and my Mother’s stylized artwork.

The Disney characters of themselves are positive company icons, but they do NOT fit in with the original theme of the ride. They will do nothing except to marginalize the rightful stars of the ride “The Children of the World”. This marginalization will do nothing but infuriate the ride’s international guests and devoted Disney fans.

My Mother and I have always had a strong sense of patriotism for America and I DO support a tribute to America. Disneyland has several venues, which are perfect places for this tribute including “Main Street USA” or “New Orleans Square”; unfortunately the “It’s a Small World” ride is NOT one of them. Once again this will marginalize the children of the world theme and bastardize my Mother’s original art. Furthermore ripping out a rainforest (Imaginary or otherwise) and replacing it with misplaced patriotism is a public relations blunder so big you could run a Monorail through it.

As a former WED employee I am saddened to realize the degradation of the company’s talent and focus and the subsequent decline at the Disneyland Park itself. I cannot believe someone from WDI was paid to come up with such an idiotic plan as this.

As the head of the Blair family I cannot urge you strongly enough to abandon this idiotic plan and instead upgrade the boats and return the ride to it’s original classic form, design and colors. The desecration of Mary’s art is an insult to Mary Blair, her art, and her memory, and to the entire Blair Family itself.

I fully support your argument and hope that this statement by the Blair family will convince Disney what they have decided to do is disheartening to passionate fans and to those who have yet to experience "it's a small world." I believe it would be beneficial for this fight to continue and would be helpful if there was support from former Imagineers who may have worked on the attraction. Disney, please leave "it's a small world" alone!

There's almost nothing more to be said. It's been suggested - and I think it a good idea - that the media hear about some of this. Hopefully the Blair family has included the media in the distribution of this letter.

And how about Roy Disney - he was pretty successful in his campaign to be reinstated in the company...? I wonder what his thoughts are...

Another Supporter on board. I feel badly for the Blair Family to have to see this unecessary remodel of IASW. I really hope that things turn out differently than planned. And by different, I mean for the better of our cause, Saving the rainforest!-SlickPetitions? Flyers? Picketlines anyone? How about a direct phone number(s) to Iger/Lasseter/Baxter to pound them with concern-calls?

>>>The Disney characters of themselves are positive company icons, but they do NOT fit in with the original theme of the ride.<<<

That's summarizes it succinctly and should have been the OVERIDING factor when upgrading the attraction (barring safety of course).

>>>This marginalization will do nothing but infuriate the ride’s international guests and devoted Disney fans.<<<

And this is something I would have thought they'd know better about. "It's a small world after all, we're all alike, let's celebrate our differences, and by the way, Up with USA!" Who thought that wouldn't raise a few angry eyebrows?

A Small World is about how all that divides us in this world is also what makes us special and to be appreciated, told in simple, elegant, childlike fashion. It culminates in a wonderful room that just goes to show how beautiful those differences are, and how the things that make us different doesn't make any one better then the other, but simply makes us ALL special. That's a theme that's too particular, too important to disregard.

I was unaware of the fact that Disneyland had been renamed, "Mary Blairland."

I was under the impression that Mary was an employee of Mr. Disney and that her creations were 'work for hire.' In fact, it was also my understanding that several other creative individuals contributed significant concepts and designs integral to this attraction (Marc Davis, Rolly Crump, etc).

Since when did Mary become "St. Mary," and it became necesssary to protect her job assignments?

That said, I find this letter to be a somewhat overblown and pompous attack ("I represent the Blair family."!?! Jeesh. Does this guy have a handlebar mustache, a monacle, and live atop a hill in a stately manor?).

The company -- right or wrong -- can re-create the ride anyway they please. Welcome to the reality of, "posession is 9/10th's of the law."

Mary's work -- in this humble writer's opinion -- is fine. It is not a sacred thing though, that can't stand the addition of someone else's handprints.

I agree with the points the Blair family made, but I wonder why the family didn't voice their concerns about the way Mary's work was betrayed in the other versions that were equally compromised long ago? Why isn't HKDL an issue too?

The message of the show and it's sincerity is at risk and what is important, not who designed it. Thoughts?

It's clear that the artistic integrity of Walt Disney's 'It's a Small World' is unimportant to you. I invite you to skip the attraction when you're at Disneyland.

For the rest of us artists and storytellers deeply inspired by the visionaries who brought this attraction to life (Walt DIsney, Mary Blair, Rolly Crump, Alice and Marc Davis among others) it is in our very DNA to do whatever we can to save their show from marginalization, homogenization and desecration.

No, maybe it's not sacred. What is?

Still, posters of Farrah Fawcett do not belong on the walls of Versailles. McDonalds Arches do not belong on the roof of the Guggenheim. Statues of Buzz and Woody do not belong in the Parthenon.

And if a work of art can stand the addition of someone else's handprint merely because it was a 'work for hire' than Michelangelo's Sistine Ceiling is in trouble.

Just when did it become necessary to protect his job assignment?

Mr. Dodgerdon. I respect your lack of emotional attachment to this attraction. Please respect the very real existence of ours.

Dodgerdon illustrates in his own way how making it all about a person can distract from the core issue. Certainly he was distracted by the veneration of Mary. I agree with the previous Anonymous poster that who's art is at stake is a secondary argument to desecrating the story of the ride. In the company's eyes, Art preservation has never been the mission of the park, but good storytelling through immersive environments has. Both are at risk.

I'd try to keep the names out of the argument and stay on message with keeping the integrity of the original story no matter who designed it. This goes for lots of the recent changes made to other attractions as well.

Like any other major corporation in America, Disney only spends money to make money. Therefore, the sole purpose of spending money on the introduction of Disney characters into iasw is to make money, i.e., produce new merchandise based on those characters in their respective new cultural settings.

This is the marketing practice developed under Eisner that is slowly destroying the Disney theme parks, bit by bit: the unnecessary permanent alteration of classic attractions for the sole purpose of creating ineffective marketing campaigns and consumer products ultimately destined for the outlet malls and discount warehouses.

When will Disney Parks & Resorts return to the tried and true business practice of designing and building brand new E-Ticket attractions from the ground up, that have historically generated those golden turnstile clicks so eagerly sought after by Burbank? Given the abundance of "dead zone" regions in DL, why must these executives insist on mangling existing classic attractions simply to justify their need for an overblown marketing department and consumer products division?

Why can't these execs comprehend that the never-before-experienced knock-your-socks-off brand spankin' new attraction is the best way to drive theme park attendance and merchandise sales, and that alterations to existing classics such as iasw ultimately add little to the immediate bottom line, and end up costing the company more in the long run by generating negative press? What's the point of spending money to make these changes, if the profit realized from those changes is less than what those changes cost to make in the first place?

If this is how Jay Rasulo believes the theme parks should be managed, then Iger should get on the phone to Matt Ouimet right now and make him an offer to return to WDC that he simply cannot refuse.

The whole reason "WDI" and now Imagineering exists was/is to "C-R-E-A-T-E", presumably from scratch. The only thing Disney has been doing as of last 15 years or so, is half assing the already existing attractions by adding a new animitronic here, removing a section there. That isn't what Walt Disney had in mind when he made the infamously quoted speech, "Disneyland will never be completed. It will continue to grow as long as there is imagination left in the world."

First of all, there is no growth room in Disneyland,CA due to lack of space. DisneyCorp would have been OK if they didn't waste all that valuable space and money in what is known as todays D.C.A.

Another quoted reply stated "I never called my work an 'art'. It's part of show business, the business of building entertainment." -- Walt DisneyI don't see any building going on... All that I see is butchering of original rides and attractions for the sake of change. If you want to add things, start with the peoplemover track that sits abandoned, as well as the old circlevision? How about losing the Thunder Ranch and adding something more useful to the public, besides an on-site private corporation rental zone and part time petting zoo?There are still areas within the park that can be utilized, but I feel the shotcallers are afraid of failure when it comes to implementing new concepts from SCRATCH. That would explain the butchering or as someone put "papercutting to death" of the classic attractions versus the complete removal. "Use your REAL imaginations, Imagineers", and maybe you'll grow some balls to defend original works.

I'm quite surprised that Re-Imagineering decided to go this route. I was really saddened when Mr. Banks stated, "To the above Dodgerdon, It's clear that the artistic integrity of Walt Disney's 'It's a Small World' is unimportant to you. I invite you to skip the attraction when you're at Disneyland."

Not only does this seem to be changing the argument (i.e. Dodgerdon was discussing legality and Banks was discussing ethics), but it degrades people that are probably on the same side. No where did that poster imply they were content with the decision, just that legally, there was little to be argued.

To really make a strong argument against this attraction modification, the community needs to address the legality of the issue. Dodgerdon is correct. Legally speaking, Ms. Blair was a commercial artist that was producing commissioned material that was owned by Disney. Because of this, Disney has the right to do whatever they'd like to the attraction.

Mr. Banks seems to be appealing only to those with an emotional response (the "true" artists?). What's crazy is that the emotional argument is weak because not everyone shares it.

The example of a Farrah Fawcett poster not belonging in a museum may have been an extreme example, but it harks on the big questions: What is relevant? To whom is it relevant? Some might argue that Farrah Fawcett belongs in the walls of a pop culture museum. Are Disney parks meant to capture the zeitgeist of the moment or maintain historical context?

Unlike the museum example you enjoy comparing counter arguments to, Disney parks do not have a charter that defines the scope or efforts of preservation. A charter is a document that states the scope and depth in which a museum or historical site make efforts to preserve history. These documents are usually long and very specific as to what would be done in cases of object or material changes over time. Disney is a corporation, not a museum, and thus, does not have a charter. The dialog as to what should be preserved and what should be changed is open within Disney's corporate culture.

While the attraction and its original integrity may be in limbo, its best to not let your emotions get the best of you. An emotional argument is limiting because they can easily be dismissed. Disney could easily look at that letter and this blog, with a dismissive statement as how to fans are too emotionally attached. It would be much more effective to give Disney good reasons (not emotions, just facts) as to why these changes may not be the best idea. This way you're speaking not only to readers that share similar emotional connections, but also drawing attention from people may be less emotionally invested in Small World.

Before you dismiss me, I just wanted to say that I support the idea of maintaining the artistic integrity of the attraction, but I do not like this type of argument. I'd rather see results that tears. If you really want to convince an international company that they're doing something wrong, its going to take more than a grumpy letter from grandkids.

"Pissed", there is "growth" room for Disneyland Park, especially in space that is currently being underused. However, with Disneyland Park packed with people already, there is less financial incentive to develop new guest areas as long as there is the "unlimited passport" system, where all admission fees are collected at the main gate. Plus, it IS California Adventure that needs the growth and attention and where there will be a larger return on investment.

As for what I've heard about the changes to It's a Small World, I'm all for "plussing" but I'm skeptical about this way of attempting to plus this attraction. The Blair family certainly has the right to express their opinion, and to have a single member of the family represent the whole family. - Ken

I completely support the Blair family. While there's a fine line treating the parks as a museum and trying to evolve attractions to appeal to today's audience, this goes against Disney's own thinking behind developing attractions: the story. What do Mickey and Stitch have to do with it's a small world? It would be like adding Donald Duck to the Matterhorn. As much as I love Donald, what would he have to do with a Swiss bobsled ride? The idea just doesn't support the Imagineer's own principles.

According to what is said in the "it's a small world" segment of this Hong Kong Disneyland promotional video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZHZDcgCao8, the updates to this attraction are exclusive to the Hong Kong Resort. Does anyone have factual confimation from the Company that the update will be used in the Disneyland Resort attraction? It's possible that someone misinterpreted some testing being done in the California ride for the Hong Kong attraction.

As if the scene itself weren't enough, they were actually planning to call it "UP with America"!? That's like taking the orignal meaning of the ride and changing it around completely; Not world peace, but world domination.

I'm starting to think this renovation is being secretly funded by a polititian...

"Does anyone have factual confimation from the Company that the update will be used in the Disneyland Resort attraction?"

I said this in the comments section of another article here but I think it's worth repeating.

There is no confirmation that this is happening. However, the Internet is a place to discuss rumors and speculate on different things. Besides, I think it's good to make our opposition to the project known before it does reach a point of no return.

Even if the rumors were a misunderstanding this spectacle does show how beloved the attraction is, that even a rumor could cause such a controversy.

I think anyone could have predicted that the Save Toad campaign was a futile exercise, but with the current leaders at Disneyland we are supposedly dealing with people and personalities who are said to "get it", Tony Baxter and John Lasseter especially. So if the rumors are indeed true then this "Save the Rainforest" thing just might have a shot.

If it goes through then I guess Baxter and Lasseter aren't the leaders we were hoping for.

> To really make a strong argument against this attraction modification, the community needs to address the legality of the issue. <

I totally disagree – art and law don’t mix, especially in this case. There is no legal precedent to stop changes being made to It’s a Small World. Disney owns the attraction and they can do what they want with it.

What is at issue is the ill-conceived plan to change the attraction. Whether one feels it’s a work of art or a commodity or something in between will affect their view of the issue. In this case, I think most of the people posting here are looking at this from an artistic and emotional point of view.

I don’t think anyone argues Disney’s right to change the attraction as they want – the question is the quality of the decision for change.

> That isn't what Walt Disney had in mind when he made the infamously quoted speech, "Disneyland will never be completed. It will continue to grow as long as there is imagination left in the world." <

I totally agree – and in reading over a letter that another poster received from Disney to their inquiry of the changes, this quote was used as justification for change. I think Disney is using Walt’s words – something else they probably own – to back up whatever changes they make, and I’m sure if pressed, they would use the same to justify Paul Pressler and Cynthia Harris and their escapades.

And I agree with Mr. Banks about the last anonymous--an emotional argument is appropriate here. I understand that Disney brass these days doesn't respond well to "nostalgia" and "feelings", but since those are central to this issue--and completely valid--they're certainly worth expressing to Disney in the hopes that somebody up there will understand. Sooner or later they're going to have to realize that their entire enterprise deals in nostalgia, and it's better they hear it from the infuriated family of a Disney legend than from more of us lowly, whining "fanatics".

> That isn't what Walt Disney had in mind when he made the infamously quoted speech, "Disneyland will never be completed. It will continue to grow as long as there is imagination left in the world." <

I'm not so sure. The evidence shows otherwise. Walt was around when the Rain Forest was moved out of context into where it is now. The sequence was not sacred.

He also added new scenes and "enhancement" elements to existing classic attractions like Nature's Wonderland, Steam Trains, and the Jungle Cruise. I cite the latter examples as they created thematic departures in their own right. Who would approve adding Dinosaurs to the 19th Century Train Ride? Irwin Allen? It's a stretch to think that those species were the same that were at the Grand Canyon originally. Or to take the serious "True Life Adventure" story of the original Jungle Cruise and make it a comedy farce with grinning elephants a lost Safari scene? Walt did.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that Walt's statement has a lot of creative license to it and has set a precident of messing with the classic shows.

However, the current proposal of adding the Disney characters does not sound like a good use of that license.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that Walt's statement has a lot of creative license to it and has set a precident of messing with the classic shows.

You make a good point--Walt did personally change more attractions (and more drastically) than we tend to credit him for.

But I'm not sure the argument is entirely valid. Your use of the term "classic shows" is inaccurate. They were Disneyland originals, yes, but in those first few years of Disneyland's existence I wouldn't call them "classics" just yet. Disneyland was something that had never been done before, and that first decade after its opening was Walt's and WED's time to toy around. Nothing was yet a time-tested success, and for most repeat visitors of Disneyland the attractions didn't yet have that all-important nostalgia factor.

That's not to say everything should have stopped evolving when Walt died--obviously I don't think that. But you can't really compare Walt's attempts to "plus" new attractions that weren't quite working with WDI's attempts these days to "plus" decades-old crowd-pleasers that just ain't broke.

The only reason they are adding these cartoon characters is to sell toys at the shop by the exit.

How often does the family of the artist who created one of these attractions go so far as to print a letter like this? But Disney, as tone deaf and money grubbing as any company could possibly be, does not care. They are plainly, openly, and nakedly grabbing at whatever tiny bit of coin they can, and trashing absolutely anything and everything that dares to stand in the way of their endless greed.

That's what the Disney company has now turned into. Yeah, I still like the things they offer, but chiefly because they haven't destroyed all of it quite just yet. Little by little, what has remained in place that is nice and decent has been replaced by demands on your wallet at every conceivable opportunity. From $10 balloons to $20,000 ripoff timeshares.

It is now gotten to the point where the families of the people involved are speaking out. Yeah, Roy Disney complained about Eisner, but that was chiefly because he was taken off the board due to forced retirement. But what does the family of Mary Blair have to gain by speaking out in this manner?

The only thing they are trying to protect is the art and creativity of a woman who created something that tried to bring a little decency to the world. Something that was not built strictly for profit alone.

All the original profits from this ride went to UNICEF. Now they are using the ride to sell junky toys made in Chinese sweat shops. Disney is a pig at the trough of the almighty dollar and it is obvious that they care about absolutely nothing else, their own self-serving protestations aside.

All of this drama with DCA, Small World, and everything wrong with the Disney owned parks has got me thinking, how the hell does the Oriental Land Company do it? Call it off topic, but I really want to know why they don't appear to have the problems that we do. Maybe ReImagineering can do an article on it because I am at a complete loss.

How do they justify the high cost of their parks and attractions to their investors?

Are their investors happy? Is the OLC in danger of going under in the future?

Why is there such a difference in budgets for their projects vs the projects Disney Co. has a hand in?

Why was DCA, WDSP, and HKDL built on the cheap and TDS built so elaborately?

I mean, we hear so often how different things are at TDR, but what makes them different?

The reason they got a better Pooh Ride (or TDS) than any other park is that their per capita spending per guest beats all the others by a wide margin and the repeat guest is huge too. their demo for Pooh is older and includes "office ladies" that are usually single and spend alot. The Pooh shop at the end of the ride beat the rest of the park per square foot. So they sell tons of merchandise and can invest much more and justify it, they do their merchandise design well too and make more on a guest that culturally feels they must buy (omiagi) souvenirs to take back (like candy for one).

OLC is also bound by a WDC management contract that holds them to a higher standard of show quality than Disney holds itself to ( and they whine about that alot) and they adhere to that. They also do not have to pay for the development of the rides they replicate. TDL is a show design abortion in that they have things like the Haunted Mansion next to Dumbo, etc. They have made good improvements along the way too.

> I guess what I'm trying to say is that Walt's statement has a lot of creative license to it and has set a precident of messing with the classic shows. <

I will agree that this is a good point - and while enhancing the Jungle Cruise and Nature's Wonderland did not deviate from the theme of those attractions, I guess running the Disneyland Railroad through the Primeval World - even with the connection to the Grand Canyon Diorama - does step across a boundary. But then again, a steam train in Tomorrowland sort of does as well. And the Primeval World wasn't disbursed through out each of the realms of the Park as will be the Disney characters in Small World.

But the enhancements that didn't fit the theme weren't so blatantly promoting the product. Walt himself promoted Disneyland on those TV shows, but the fact that the characters weren't even on the property for the first few years shows that he wasn't trying to use them promotionally. Sleeping Beauty Castle was built long before the picture was released.

And enhancements that were added to attractions were there to enhance the attraction. Continuously diverting the attention of the guest from the theme to the Disney character and the back to the theme again will make the attraction jumbled. And replacing a rainforest - whether it was originally at that point in the attraction or not - with an "Up for America" segment is just plain foolish, especially when environmental issues are so promenent.

As you will see in my posts, I have never argued in favor of the Small World debacle, just wanted to point out the precidents set in the past for fundamentally messing with the attractions, and that Walt quote has left an open door for those who want to leave their creative mark to do these types of things.

Anonymous said:>>>I guess what I'm trying to say is that Walt's statement has a lot of creative license to it and has set a precident of messing with the classic shows.<<<

It sets a precedent. But it has been used as an excuse.

The precedent set, is that Disney would be an ever changing, ever morphing entity, that would grow as Imagineers' imaginations grew too. It implied movement into the future; growth, expansion, creativity.

This is not happening in most cases, and certainly not here. They're using Walt's statement to justify any old decision that they set their minds to. That's not interpretation, that's bastardization. That's no different then early century Americans who justified slavery by telling themselves that blacks weren't human, so the Constitution didn't apply to them.

Truly, this is to a much lesser extreme. But the parallels to be made are of a people in power, who frequently show no care for their charter, except in those instances when it can be manipulated to fit their immediate desires. They make the mistake that because Walt said it, that we'll fall in line.

But Waltisms are so, because they revolved around a central philosophy. Quality, creativity, growth. On the surface, you can take any one of those statements and say it says whatever you want. But look at the tenets behind them, and these sayings that they often mock us for reciting espouse one centralized form of thought. And that thought is markedly different from what Disney does today. They're fooling themselves if they think they aren't hurting themselves. Sales are up for now. But this kind of self-destructive business sensibility seldom lasts indefinitely.

Not only that, but... I don't know how the Disneyland Small World is, but whenever I ride the Small World at Magic Kingdom, the rainforest scene always evokes smiles and peps people up... It's kindof like an intermission... You kind of start to go, "okay, it's all dancing dolls", and suddenly the wacky creatures of the rainforest grab your attention and you are interested to see what's next... For the Magic Kingdom, if you ripped out the rainforest, the giant swaying elephant at the Africa portal, and the Polynesian/Australian scenes, you would begin to have a rather bland ride... It's nice to see things mixed up a bit with new color palettes, creatures and stylistic influences. I haven't seen the DL version yet... Maybe bland is what they want to move towards towards with this ride... "Hey, that's not a dancing doll! Rip it out and put something more sensible there!" *sigh* I would like to see these decision-makers anonymously ride the boat many times over to listen to and watch how their guests react to the different scenes... They might learn a lot.

I hope Disney understands that with changing this world famous ride they're gonna lose tons of money because not many travelers will find disney as their number one spot to vacation at since there's no original and untouched unique ride as its a small world... how ignorant!

I enjoy the Disney Pantheon of characters and Mary Blair's child creations rank toward the top. Part of the charm is that they all occupy equally delightful and specific environments. To mix them is crass and 'Shrek-ish' (the most insulting adjective I could think of). The Shepard inspired Winnie the Pooh would belong no more in It's a Small World than the famed rain forest would in The Hundred Acre Wood. And the single American Indian and Cowboy are the perfect finishing vignette for the perfectly delightful ride.Rev. Woodrow Pace (I apologize for the Anonymous identity, but I'm not a regular blogger.)

1. You are all debating something you have not seen (that goes for me as well). It's all in the execution and I'll reserve final judgement till I see that. If you told me that WDI was going to put a literal Swiss Mountain with a Coaster in it right next to the Castle, dwarfing the thing and visible from Frontierland I'd be burning Liederhosen in protest. But it was well done and I love the Matterhorn.

2. The guests may love it more than the original. Walt was about the guest and what they liked and changed the park accordingly. So what if they say "there's Woody!' and the kids all laugh and smile, isn't that what they're coming to do? Bottom line they may love it more than the old version.

3. I don't think anyone expects this to drive merchandise in any significant way. The awareness of these characters is saturated as it is. One Stitch doing the Hula is the equivalent to a Cameo in an Emporium window. WDI obviously sees this as a small plus that will make the ride more fun to go on.

4. Relevance. The truth is that more kids know the Pirates movies than the original version of the ride. Their expectation is that the ride is from the movie. They pretty much had to (Depputize) update it to match the expectation and satisfaction of the new generation of guests. Adding the characters to IASW gives younger guests something to relate to beyond the dolls. I doubt the message of world peace is threatened.

Mary's style and art is still there but it's now being enjoyed by new friends we all know.

The only thing of relevance this will add is the relevance of buying Disney stuffed toys. Of course this is there to drive toy sales. When you see Donald Duck in his Kimono on the ride, and you see the same thing in the exit toy shop, then you will have people buy them. That's entirely what this is about.

Attempts to BS the public about this are really wearing thin. Relevance, popularity, and so on. People who keep claiming that the ride needs to change in such a manner, when it is already quite popular are making ridiculous assertions. "Disneyland will never be completed..." used over and over again until it no longer has any meaning whatsoever. And if you even look at some of the rides put in, based on cartoon characters, they aren't even all that popular anyway. Stitch's Great Escape is not exactly a barn burner. But, hey, it's got STITCH!

I can not believe, nor do I expect anyone with an IQ above double digits to believe, that when asked about Small World in surveys, people blurted out "I want to see more Disney characters on the ride."

There are other things going on in the world right now. There is a war. Our economy is in ruin, we have a Presidential election going on right now. Yes, we all know those things.

We also all know this is Disney's property to do with as they please, and Disney needs to make money.

Bringing these sorts of comments up is utterly beside the point and totally insulting. People talking about this are not stupid.

It is also completely missing the point of the ride, why it is there, and why this is such a distasteful thing.

But, you know, perhaps Disney has not quite yet wrung out every last penny out of the pockets of the suckers who walk in their front gate. And while they may make a few extra bucks off this sort of thing short term, people are going to eventually grow tired of paying money to do little else but watch commericials for them to buy even more things.

I don't need Disney to give my kids any more excuses to whine for even more of their overpriced toys.

I love how, in doing this, the Blair family has completely trivialized the artistic team behind this project. I would hope the WDI team behind the redo would seek to stylistically research and match Blair's style when adding elements to the ride -- any good artist would.

I do agree that ripping out a rainforest for the "Up with America!" finale (what an eye-roll inducing name) is a public relations nightmare.

I wonder how many of these heated opinions are coming from people who know very much about this project at all? I think it was rather pompous of the Blair family to issue a "c&d" instead of requesting that they be included in the re-do to ensure the integrity of Mary Blair's style and vision (although, after reading this letter, I hope that would never happen as it would likely be a train wreck).

I do not have a problem with putting Disney characters in IASM if it is done correctly. There are many Disney characters of many different nationalities...isn't that what this is all about anyway? I don't expect to see Aladdin ice skating with the Norwegian children, but the addition of Disney characters as context appropriate additions would add interest to IASM.

Let's just settle down for the ride and see what comes out of it. Remember the huge kicking and screaming contest that erupted over the Tom Sawyer's Island redo? While I'm a fan of classic Disney attractions (and this Disney should do a WAY better job of documenting them before they remove/plus them), I think that whole situation ended up making the end product poorer than it could have been.

Mr. Faraday: Adding in Disney Characters to It's a Small World, no matter how charming or Blair-ified they are, is a bad idea. It takes the focus off the children of world, the true stars of the attraction. This has been stated about 15,000 times already, but I guess it can't be stated enough.

If it turns out terribly then they can always fix it during a later refurbishment, right? I'm for the change and I'm glad that Disney is putting money into the attraction.

As for the Mary Blair work, her style is preserved forever in some of Disney's finest animation. It's not like Disney is wiping out the fact that she ever existed.

If Mary Blair wanted her artistic vision to be preserved in it's original state forever, she would have put her work in a museum, instead of working for a commercial giant like Disney. A company that has the responsibility to the shareholders to make changes in order to maximize profit. Even though you may not agree with that strategy, Disney is going to do that anyway. The company doesn't exist to make people happy, it exists to make people money.

Those of you that are so attached to this attraction, good luck in your quest- I'm sure it will be a good ride either way.

> As for the Mary Blair work, her style is preserved forever in some of Disney's finest animation. It's not like Disney is wiping out the fact that she ever existed.

If Mary Blair wanted her artistic vision to be preserved in it's original state forever, she would have put her work in a museum, instead of working for a commercial giant like Disney. A company that has the responsibility to the shareholders to make changes in order to maximize profit. Even though you may not agree with that strategy, Disney is going to do that anyway. The company doesn't exist to make people happy, it exists to make people money. <

Disney wiped Mary off the murals in Tomorrowland - and frankly I think that's a better course of action than vandalizing her work. Contrary to her film work, Small World is tangible, it's real and it's an experience that people can immerse themselves in. It is a perfect illustration of what Walt wanted his park to be.

I believe there are a number of people who have made contributions to the arts through commercial means. Their original intent as artists isn't to see their work preserved. However it ends up that the work is so good, it begs to be preserved. And a company like Disney - one that makes an icon out of it's 50 plus year old Park - should understand that and treat the Park and its attractions as they icon they make them out to be.

Right - Disney doesn't exist to make people happy - it exists to make people money. And that's the root cause of all that's wrong with the company right now isn't it? Short term profit over quality. Walt was right - quality will win out. It's unfortunate that those he left behind don't seem to understand.

>>The company doesn't exist to>>make people happy, it exists to>>make people money.

To play devil's advocate, in a way it *does* exist to make people happy... it's part of the principal of hospitality. When I worked merchandise at Universal, part of my job was to talk to guests, try to help with crying and overheated/scared children, etc. Why? Because as much as possible, the guest's visit needed to be pleasant... or else they might not return, and they might tell their friends it wasn't worth the expense and travel. This was emphasized over and over...

I think part of people's concern is the tendency to slap simple, cheap solutions into the parks (for example, the flying carpet ride at Magic Kingdom, which effectively blocks every vista of Adventureland and is almost the same ride as Dumbo). If too many things are trivialized, a beloved park may become more of a glorified Six Flags. Disney is known for their creativity, but this change shocks a lot of people because it isn't the creativity that people expect from them. There are a million things they could do to enrich the ride for the younger generation without making the whole thing a tribute to American commercial products designed by Disney Corp. "Throw characters on the ride" is an answer that any regional park would pull as a way to draw more guests... Regional parks do this because every season has to be good to ensure their survival. Disney has the opportunity, tradition and stylistic range to do better than the expected solution...

Disney has incredible subtlety in their storytelling, but sometimes when making additions they don't consider something carefully, but rather they act more like a bull in a china shop. The Pirates and Princess party is an example of this: they saw the financial strength of those two genres and threw together an event, expecting the same revenues as their Christmas and Halloween events just by making a new parade, fireworks and candy distribution spots. Granted that a new parade and fireworks is no small feat, but they are pretty much expected in the park, and don't necessarily add the novelty and "magic" that people expect when paying for a hard ticket event. Plus, the whole event is like milking a cow -- they were probably hoping to extend their special event calendar year round and bring in those extra admission dolars... It's no longer special when it's based on a fad and extends for months on end...

Adding characters to Small World is also a very trite solution, and I don't know if in the long run it will make people happy. Some of the best decisions that Disney made in the past were the ones that ran counter to what everyone else was doing and thinking would work. A full length cartoon? They said no one would watch it... An upscale amusement park? So expensive that the investors will loose their shirts... Nowadays, a lot of people would say it is ludicrous to make an attraction without a clear story -- it just won't draw people in... But then isn't that just what the most enduring rides at Disney are? Many of them have vignettes and progression, but not a clear storyline.

If Disney starts to make all of the same decisions that the regional parks would make (the most blatent example being all of the rides they threw into DCA and Dinoland, USA) or recycle and skimp on product (ex. Hong Kong Disneyland) just to save on money and creative expense, the guest's unhappyness will translate to the bottom line. With a park like Disneyland, it would take a lot of these kinds of decisions to make guests put their vacation dollars elsewhere... But Disney does make mistakes, and there are painful consequences when the guests don't like something that are felt in the bottom line. They have done some great attractions in the past few years, and some great shows... but when they go "on the cheap" either monetarily or creatively, and make kneejerk decisions the outcome is generally bad and attendence reflects how the guests feel about the park...

It seems like the hype on this particular issue is overblown, but maybe people are reacting because it is representative of other decisions Disney has made that have reduced the "magic", nostalgia and quality of their parks. It's not just Small World, but all of the wonderful rides that have been torn down while the heart was still beating to make way for something that was popular that year... the carney rides... the "dumbing down" of existing rides (celebrities in Universe of Energy, Journey to Your Imagination, and the new narration of Spaceship Earth). Disney parks have room for all of the richness that the human imagination can produce... By making all of the new attractions full of characters and celebrities, I think they are missing the fact that their audience is varied and diverse. And in this case, they are also forgetting that there is a varied and diverse world beyond their movies and characters -- beyond the borders of our culture and language... That was the point of the ride, wasn't it?

I was a young boy in 1964 when I rode ‘It’s a Small World’ at the New York Worlds fair. All the riders were New Yorkers.

Twenty five years later, I rode it again at Disney World. I was the only American on the boat. It truly had become a small world and Disney has had a big part in helping bridge many gaps internationally.

It’s a Small World should be preserved as a piece of Art and Cultural History. It, in its own innocent way may have help prevent World War and planted seeds of peace for the millions of people who have been exposed to this amazing 10 minute experience.

Just based on that, we should preserve this experience for future generations.

I visited “It’s a Small World” with my 7 year old daughter in March 2008 and felt I had passed on a spiritual endowment to her. I hope she will do the same for her children.

"And in this case (it's a small world), [Disney is] also forgetting that there is a varied and diverse world beyond their movies and characters -- beyond the borders of our culture and language... That was the point of the ride, wasn't it?"

Perfect! This synthesizes in a few words what many of us have felt so strongly.

Actually he's not cranky at all: his observations are calm and generous.

Just dropped in to say kudos on the publicity this is starting to get--a friend of mine was browsing TMZ and just IMed me the link to their Blair family bit. She is a frequent visitor of the Disney parks but not as, shall we say, fervent or impassioned an internet follower as I am...however she was outraged by the idea when she read about it.

This is all well and good, but honestly lets take a look at the disney mindset. Everyone knows that during the non-holiday season "It's a Small World" doesn't exactly post amazing ridership numbers. It is further a given fact that Disney wants to increase ridership on the attractions with high capacity numbers to keep crowds out of the walkways and eateries during peak times in the park. Ever get pissed when you are walking around the East side of the matterhorn and it takes you 20 mins to get from tomorrowland to fantasyland? This is because there are too many people in one place, and partly because not enough people are in line for attractions like mansion, small world, pirates, etc. By adding disney characters this small world would of more appeal to the MAINSTREAM guest who comes into the part for the PURPOSE of seeing the disney characters.Now, dont take this to mean that I support the proposed character additions, because I do not. But let's be realistic. Is disney really going to change their imagineering plan which could improve ridership in a much needed area to appease a minority of purists? Unlikely. It wasn't done for Country Bears in 2001/2002 either.

"By making all of the new attractions full of characters and celebrities, I think they are missing the fact that their audience is varied and diverse. And in this case, they are also forgetting that there is a varied and diverse world beyond their movies and characters -- beyond the borders of our culture and language... That was the point of the ride, wasn't it?"

> This is because there are too many people in one place, and partly because not enough people are in line for attractions like mansion, small world, pirates, etc. By adding disney characters this small world would of more appeal to the MAINSTREAM guest who comes into the part for the PURPOSE of seeing the disney characters. <

So if crowds are the result of people not being in line for attractions, rather than bastardizing the attraction, I would - if in charge - get rid of Fast Pass. As for seeing Disney characters, isn't their proliferation throughout the rest of the park enough? If they are the key to successful attractions, why do Haunted Mansion, the Matterhorn, Space Mountain, Thunder Mountain, the Jungle Cruise...etc., still exist?

If Small World is performing so poorly that it doesn't contribute to moving crowds, then it should be removed - not vandalized. My guess is that Disney is afraid to take it out for the uproar that would be created.

"If Small World is performing so poorly that it doesn't contribute to moving crowds"

That's the thing though, Small World had no problems performing. It still manages to be one of the most popular attractions in the park. That you never see a line for it is only a testament to its amazing capacity.

The attraction sees tens of thousands of guests per day. Performance is no issue here.

P.S. Thank you for your kind feedback. As a side note, I am proud, like Ms. Blair, to be a female attraction designer and artist :-) I think that a larger number of designers are male -- I've only met one other female designer in 2 years in the industry. I think our contributions are important nevertheless...

So far most of the argument for maintaining IASW's original scenes and art direction have been focused on Mary Blair's contributions to the attraction. Why isn't there as much focus on the fact that this was one of the last attractions that Walt himself oversaw and that as one of the Disney designed attractions of the 64 worlds fair it was a major turning point in WED's history and in theme park attraction design as we know it?People have been making the pilgrimage to Disneyland's Small world, the original Small World for 4 decades. Its cultural relevance and appeal is independent from the Disney brand because it wasn't designed for Disney. If we really want to brand it how about we just put a can of PEPSI in each of the Doll's hands, I see all the dollar signs now, oh wait, that wouldn't go over because it promotes childhood obesity. I'm all for progress, but don't brand something that need not be branded. If they really want to add something to Small World , I think it should be Rolly Crump's long absent tower of the four winds.

I just came back from DL last night, and was GROSSLY saddened when I was unable to ride IASW. I only heard the rumors of WHY it was being "rennovated", upon returning home. After further research, I was sickened to read about the changing of the SCENES inside.

Shame on you, WDI. Hasn't the park been commercialized enough? Pirates is a fabulous example of the recent exploitation.

It's no longer the Disneyland we all came to know and love. And, I'm not even 40!!

regardless of mary or how big of a disney geek you might be, IASW is a powerful concept in general. what the world needs most right now is love and understanding...why would you waste the opportunity? it's a sin.

For anyone intersted in making an in-person statement, Baxter, Dave Fisher, Kevin Rafferty and Michael Sprout will be signing copies of the new "Imagineering the Magic" DVD on Sat. April 5 from 9 AM – 11 AM.

If you are going to make a comment to Tony Baxter about this be as polite as you can be and don't be belligerent. Once he gives his answer, which will probably be a non-answer or even some variation of "no comment", leave him alone.

Overzealous Disney fans looking to "confront" Baxter on this will do more harm than good.

A friend of mine had a comment about this situation. What we have now is the perfect instance of crying wolf. For years, people have been shouting about misaligned manhole covers and PRESSLER PRESSLER PRESSLER! Over any little thing.

At this point, Disney is basically going to discount so much of what is said, particularly if it is hysterical in tone. This is what the online fans reap from making statements such as "the parking lot was better," or other similar such things.

We've earned the right to be ignored and to have our opinions on more important issues in these matters rebuffed.

I hope everyone learns to enjoy the cartoon figures in the ride, we've paid for them with every single nonsensical and rage filled complaint made over the last 10 or so years.

One of the first generation Imagineers told me this story of how he had designed a proposal for the "Satellite View of America" attraction where the guest could see the Earth as it appeared from space, but back in time. Historic scenes could be viewed from on high with tiny figurines enacting famous battles, etc. Walt took one look at the renderings and upon realizing it was going to be figurines, shrugged and said "It's just a bunch of $%^% dolls? I HATE dolls!" and he walked out, end of idea.

Several years later, this same Imagineer was furious to learn that Walt was building an entire show made entirely of Dolls! It's funny how no matter what the idea is, it's all in the execution.

>.A friend of mine had a comment about this situation. What we have now is the perfect instance of crying wolf.<<

Who was crying wolf?

We are still living with the disastrous decisionmaking that brought us California Adventure, Tomorrowland '98, Innoventions, Winnie-the-Pooh, a deserted PeopleMover track and Jet platform, the eviction of Swiss Family Robinson in favor of Disney Store mannequins, the addition of Johnny Depp scenes to Pirates and Pirates to Tom Sawyer Island - -

And if it weren't for "complaints" of Walt admirers we wouldn't have seen a return to decent paint schemes for Space Mountain and Small World - - or a restored Tiki Room, a revived Submarine Voyage and other recent positives (thanks for those, whomever is responsible).

Yes, where do I and my picket sign show up. Please, please WDI- come to your senses! Mary Blair's creation is NOTHING LESS THAN A MASTERPIECE. This is a desecration, honestly. I am stunned that anyone would find any worth in this type of change. Where's John Canemaker?

Yes, where do I and my picket sign show up. Please, please WDI- come to your senses! Mary Blair's creation is NOTHING LESS THAN A MASTERPIECE. I am stunned that anyone would find an ounce of merit in this change. Where's John Canemaker?

While I find Small World a mildly annoying curiosity at best, I am flabbergasted that Disney would even think of touching it with this ridiculous concept! The ride is a masterpiece and should be treated as such.

Shame on you, Disney! If it ain't broke-don't fix it! (Ok, maybe Small World gets broke when our larger American friends sink the boats-but you know what I mean...)

A thank you is also in order for Bruce Gordon, a man instrumental in keeping the Submarine Lagoon from turning into a cement play area. For his efforts he was fired. Shrug.

The funny thing about the crying wolf comment is that the guy who wrote that post is obviously against the small world changes, but that efforts to save the attraction are hampered by those of us who cried foul over less important issues.

I'm sure he's referring to our complaints about lightbulbs, paint, and broken benches. But who is to say that Al Lutz and other's ravings against burnt out light bulbs and peeling paint were over nothing?

The little stuff we cried wolf over was a symptom of even bigger problems. When the paint is chipping off the walls and stays that way for months, what you see on the surface, what else is falling apart behind the scenes?

Are the tracks on these coasters stable? Are the cast members competent enough to operate attractions and keep guests safe? Are parts of Big Thunder trains going to fall off and derail the coaster? Is an insufficiently trained cast member going to overshoot the dock on the Columbia?

I propose that the same attitudes that led to those two events are the same attitudes that led to peeling paint and burnt out light bulbs.

I don't know about you, but when the paint is fresh and the bulbs are bright, it gives me peace of mind knowing that the park and its guests are well taken care of.

> We are still living with the disastrous decisionmaking that brought us California Adventure, Tomorrowland '98, Innoventions, Winnie-the-Pooh, a deserted PeopleMover track and Jet platform, the eviction of Swiss Family Robinson in favor of Disney Store mannequins, the addition of Johnny Depp scenes to Pirates and Pirates to Tom Sawyer Island - -

Wow - what a list - when you put it all together like that, it's just a damn shame. I kind of feel sorry for those who would only accept the theme park as a place for thrills and sensory overload (guests and Disney alike). They missed the time when the above list was satisfactory and satisfying...and that's unfortunate.

> Are the tracks on these coasters stable? Are the cast members competent enough to operate attractions and keep guests safe? Are parts of Big Thunder trains going to fall off and derail the coaster? Is an insufficiently trained cast member going to overshoot the dock on the Columbia?

I propose that the same attitudes that led to those two events are the same attitudes that led to peeling paint and burnt out light bulbs. <

If these renovation rumors are true, I am also heartsick. And also, frankly, baffled: What are they thinking?!

Regarding the "Up with America" scene (Is it REALLY going to be called that?!):

There are many tributes to America throughout the park. No one questions Walt Disney's patriotism. In a sense all of Disneyland is a tribute to America. But the whole point of "It's a Small World" is to be the attraction where America looks beyond itself to acknowledge the beauty and importance of other cultures as well. I am 42 and have been riding IASW since childhood, and I am still moved by that fact.

cranky attraction designer said...

"I don't know how the Disneyland Small World is, but whenever I ride the Small World at Magic Kingdom, the rainforest scene always evokes smiles and peps people up..."

I very much agree. It is one of my favorite scenes! I like the contrasting dark lighting, and the child-like, low-tech quality of using plastic strips to represent rainfall.

(And since I've seen little acknowledgment of the Sherman Brothers' contribution to the ride in this discussion -- not to mention that of the brilliant arranger who somehow wrote so many amazing ethnic variations on their simple, catchy theme song -- I'll also add that I really like the percussive variation on the Small World theme in the Rainforest scene. Just in terms of musical interest and contrast, the percussion makes for a nice break from the melody before it returns in full, final splendor.)

Finally, aside from the simple fact of Disney characters distracting from and minimizing the overall theme of the ride ... They simply don't fit stylistically. Even "Blair-ified" Disney characters (if they've even thought of that as a possibility) would not fit. I love Disney characters -- but IN THE APPROPRIATE CONTEXT.

I thought Imagineers were the ones who were supposed to be obsessive about stylistic integrity, designing things smoothly and subtly so there will be nothing jarring between design elements. They wouldn't put a ToonTown-style house in New Orleans Square. Why even consider this?

With the success of the 50th Anniversary Celebration, one would think the Disney Corporation would see that nostalgia is profitable, that the public is willing to pay to see their most adored rides taken care of and lovingly restored.

Disney can't buy nostagia from a warehouse and install it. It has been built in the hearts and minds of over fifty years of visitor experiences in their park. They would be wise not to squandor such a precious commidiy. It is what makes them successful. After all, Six Flags has better rides. But Disney parks are living breathing works of art.

They have been created to stir emotions in those that visit. The colors, the shapes, the smells, the textures, they all create feelings of home and happiness.

That is art. Sure, Disney is profitable and accessible to the masses, but that is the genius of it. Profitable works of the highest creation.

The Victorian houses of San Francisco were once considered eyesores. Watch films of the 1980's and the "white trash" houses are Craftsman era homes.

Let It's a Small World exist as it is. Lovingly bring it back after the rehab to its original glory. Look at the success of the Tiki Room! It was let to rot in the hopes it could be bulldozed. Now, lines wrap around Adventureland for a Dole Whip. The art that Shag created for the 40th anniversary sells for $12,000+.

If an imagineer or an executive doesn't understand why it is important to preserve It's a Small World, maybe they should be working for Bugs Bunny.

>>With the success of the 50th Anniversary Celebration, one would think the Disney Corporation would see that nostalgia is profitable, that the public is willing to pay to see their most adored rides taken care of and lovingly restored.<<

There is a peculiar lack of learning curve with a specific segment of management. They just hold on to misguided beliefs, no matter the proven outcome - positive or negative.

Growing up, It's a Small World was one of my favorite rides. I had the original LP with the picture book that I would play countless times. Remember that? Plus I created my own model/diorama for an entry into the county fair.

I would have to agree with the majority of rantings here: Adding countless Disney characters into the ride is superfluous. If you are going to add new characters I would think they should stick to the same theme and add Disney "children" verses animals; Belle, Mulan, Hercules, Ariel, Tarzan, Aladdin, Snow White, etc. But what's the point? So a guest can recognize a character? The beauty of the ride is they're not which beautifully blends in with small world theme. I don't think the ride gains anything by adding the Disney characters.

BTW - doesn't this sound reminiscent of the controversy over the politically correct Pirates a number of years ago?

Oh well. I spend a lot of money at these parks. I go maybe once or twice a year, and when I am there, I spend a few hundred dollars per day, easily.

But I only go a couple times a year. That is a far cry from someone with a SoCal passport who spends $50 a week at the place.

Disney wants to appeal to these low rent visitors. They make more money on the volume in that manner than they do on my relatively few visits per year.

The fact that if they did appeal to me, and people like me, I might go more often and spend quite a bit more money in the process does not seem to enter into the equation. They want the crowd that they can advertise to on the rides, and who will buy $25 pin sets that cost them a dime to make.

If that's what they want, more power to them. I have other places I can spend money at. The cash I would have spent will be more than made up for by the folks getting Chinese made stuffed toys at the ride exit.

I'm so very glad Iger is there now to replace the things that Eisner used to do. Oh. Wait. He's doing the exact same sort of things.

Disney is whoring out this classic ride to make it different in an attempt to compell people to come to the park and see it. The changes to Pirates of the Carribean, while still flowing with the original theme, was also a gross bastardization of a classic. A classic that was Walt's last triumph. Such a shame.

>> Disney is whoring out this classic ride to make it different in an attempt to compell people to come to the park and see it. The changes to Pirates of the Carribean, while still flowing with the original theme, was also a gross bastardization of a classic. A classic that was Walt's last triumph. Such a shame. <<

It's worse than that - Disney is whoring out Small World to sell plush.

I love my country but don't see the need to change a classic and already wonderful ride! I agree that a tribute would be welcomed in a more viewed area where it coulf be enjoyed more :) I do think that It's a small world needs a face lift but why change something if it's not broken?? I pray they do not change the ride..I want it to remain the way I remember as a child.. and I want my child to remember it like that as well.

This is another bad idea!!!- just like the dreadful move to make lame "Straight to video" sequels of classic masterpieces like "Bambi" and "Lady and the Tramp".They should have the good taste, common sense, and general decency to preserve Mary' Blair's wonderful design. Placing inappropriate characters into an inproper context would not only destroy the design of the attraction, but diminish the meaning behind it as well.Its obviously another example of the vulgar, barbaric business practices of the present Disney corporate regime.It milks every dime out of the legacy of the earlier innovators ,while not even respecting the contributions that they so shamelessly exploit!

I love the idea of dumping the Rain Forest because I'll be able to buy that glitter alligator and a bunch of those New guinea masks and stuff on ebay in a few months and have an original Rolly Crump piece or Mary Blair design. What are we waiting for? Let's push for the changes!

Mary Blair is one of the most inspired artists of the 20th century. Her unique style should consequently inspire modern artists (i.e. Imagineers) to create their own masterpieces.

The Disney Company's penchant for merchandising everything is stealing the magic it is meant to emanate.

We go to Disney Theme Parks to be swept out of reality for the fleeting moments we can afford. It's a Small World is a shining gem that will be left tarnished if it falls victim to Disney's current trend of advancing the art of capitalism. Besides, what is more patriotic than celebrating our country through it's diversity of global culture?

Leave Mary Blair's - It's a Small World the way she and Walt Disney himself meant it to be.

I don't think Small World will be "ruined" by these changes. Different yes, but ruined no. My parents are way different both mentally and phisically than they were and I'd rather have them younger, but they evolved. I won't hate Small World, I may still go on it and (these changes will be more subliminal than we are reacting), will not be what I focus on. As with Tiki Room, I relive my childhood wonder and kindle the feelings seeing that show unfold. I can still get that, and so they can add wrinkles, make it senile and allow it to slur it's story. But the Castle, like my old grandmother, wearing it's garish cake makeup, will still be the same Castle I loved at 5 and will always love no matter how much she changes.

It indeed saddens me that some people think that Small World should be removed from the Disneyland altogether. It is perhaps one of the few feel good rides left in the park.

I do believe that the ride should be spruced up in a big way, but adding Disney characters to the ride only takes away from it's core theme.

Instead of adding Disney Characters to the ride, Imagineering needs to rethink how todays' technology can refresh the ride, similar to what was done in the Haunted Mansion a little while back. Many of Small Worlds' original show elements are part of 1960's technology and need to be re-evaluated. There are more creative ways of making the ride fresher and more in tune with todays' audiences,like adding surprising, humorous and mysterious elements to the attraction. Putting some figures of Aladdin or Pocahontas in the show scenes seems like a quick fix and doesn't add anything to the theme of the ride. I don't understand why adding a US show scene to the ride is so important. Most of the audience viewing the ride is American, so clearly the U.S. is well represented. This is kinda like the idea of visiting a California Adventure Theme Park in.. California. What's the point?

>>I can still get that, and so they can add wrinkles, make it senile and allow it to slur it's story. But the Castle, like my old grandmother, wearing it's garish cake makeup, will still be the same Castle I loved at 5 and will always love no matter how much she changes.<<

Aging gracefully is one thing, it's the unnecessary Boxtox injections, bee sting lips, implants and facelifts that make a lovely, aging granny into a scary "young" "Catwoman."

Why dont they put that new attraction where America Sings? They took out the poeple mover to put in some rocket ride that only lasted a year and now it just sits empty. Put back the rides that made Disneyland a family tradition. I must agree about updating the boats but just redo the dolls and give it some fresh paint. Leave something that walt himself had some great artist design.

Quit all the whinning!!! Let Disney do whatever it wants with its park! That's right, the park belongs to the Disney company. They can make the boats bigger for our obese society, and they can redesign the theme, as well. We need more patriotism in this country, in a big way. Disney can be assured that I will maintain my Premium Annual Pass, as I enjoy sharing the magic with my children.

I agree with Mr. Blair. It's a Small World was to represent cultures and to show that the purest thing in our horrible world, the children, could want the best thing for us. Hell, to be honest, Disney is bastardizing classic attractions. The movie characters in PotC has ruined for me. Davy Jones replaced something that helped you realize the caeverns are supposed to tell how the pirates are the past, the skeletons are the present. And for what? To contradict the ride's most memorable line! Disney destroyed the wonderfull Mr. Toad's Wild Ride to put in Pooh at WDW when Pooh and Toad could have both fit in Fantasyland. The only attraction I'm not sick of from Disney's meddling is the Haunted Mansion. Soon they're probably going to redo it once they remake the movie successfully.

I have always loved the message that it's a small world has had to offer. It is my favorite ride in the park and brings back so many fond memories every time I ride it. I resent those that refer to it as 'the creepy doll ride' I think the model of peace between nations is a beautiful message that comes across in that ride the way that it is. It is such a classic regaurdless of the fact that the story is not told through pre-established Disney characters, the 'small world' children are NOW as established as Disney characters and to add Cinderella or Alice (as much as I love them) to this ride will confuse and distort the message it is sending. It will get pieced together with their stories and the world peace theme runs the risk of being lost.

I freak out when Haunted Mansion changes every year for Holiday, a change like this might scar me for life when it comes to Disneyland.

I think this ride is so central to the message of the park as a whole, to bring nations together, everyone is unique and has something to offer, it is important to use such anonymous character as small world does!!

>> Quit all the whinning!!! Let Disney do whatever it wants with its park! That's right, the park belongs to the Disney company. They can make the boats bigger for our obese society, and they can redesign the theme, as well. We need more patriotism in this country, in a big way. Disney can be assured that I will maintain my Premium Annual Pass, as I enjoy sharing the magic with my children. <<

That's right - the Disney Company can do what it wants with it's park. That doesn't mean it's right. And more patriotism at the expense of rainforests and other cultures is JUST what this country needs (sarcasm intended)...enjoy your Annual Pass and the marketing magic it invokes because if these Small World changes happen, its only going to get worse.

Correct me if I’m wrong(for I truly appreciate the sentiment, and the original conception of this attraction, and it's designers) anyway I found this site on accident, and as a cast member, I am proud that there are so many people "outside" that are horrified by what may be happening, I think the number of people that have posted against this speaks volumes of the validity of the complaint, but in addition to that, lets use Walt's own words, didn't he say "...now we have created another kind of 'magic kingdom'...in theme, and in its festive spirit, we have tried to make this new "land" the happiest of places..a magic kingdom of all the worlds’ children...we call this adventure 'it's a Small World' " (and yes, I realize I’m paraphrasing here) To further this, was it not also stated in the 1963 WED brochure that "no world is more universally enchanting than the world of CHILDHOOD. Its gaiety and laughter have flowed from the verse of poets. Composers have sung its happy song, from musical instruments. Painters have boldly etched on canvas the charm and youthful joy of life....Walt Disney has captured the spirit of childhood in one unique adventure, letting the enthusiasm, the enchantment, the excitement of youth overflow in a Musial fantasy called 'it's a Small World'...here imagination plays, the imagination of childhood, and the imagination of Walt Disney...if you too, are the young at heart...cruise into a magical Disney-land of all the worlds CHILDREN"Of course there's much more and I found it to be incredibly interesting..But what I find most amazing is that there's NO MENTION of Disney Characters. ANY WHERE, there's no Mickey, Donald Pluto Goofy, nothing, it's all a tribute to THE CHILDREN, ...imagine 300 HUNDRED different children in the costume of their homeland, over 100 different nations represented, more than 250 animals and toys, and with those together, over 500 Children and Animals, not one DISNEY character...I understand "plussing" (believe me it’s been driven home many times)But I don't believe you PLUS something that's been an icon for nearly 45 years!!the very idea that we are using something so simple and so innocent as a marketing tool to "sell more plush" turns my stomach and embarrasses me, this is the company I work for, this is the company I believe in, this is the Legacy, and history that I take trips to the studio to read about, to watch about, and to find more information about.Let’s look at the "hacks" who worked on this attraction Mary Blair (amazing...phenomenal, and underrated)...Disney LegendAlice Davis (I adore you and I love that you speak your mind!)....Disney LegendMarc Davis (can anything be said that hasn't been said)..Disney LegendBlaine Gibson (one of the most humble men I’ve ever spoken to)...Disney LegendSherman Brothers (yes, it was the song, but...it's part of the attraction)...Disney LegendsJoyce Carlson (we wouldn't have the attraction without her talent and her "dolls") ....Disney Legend Leota Toombs (for that adorable picture painting the bear and for giving us Madame Leota) Disney LegendRolly Crump (I will never forget his interview of Haunted Mansion where he says, "the others had all the REAL ideas they told me....but Walt asked ME to do the Television spot")...Disney LegendWalt Disney...the very reason that i'm hereand, in all reality, I’m NOT that knowledgeable, there are probably a score of other talented people that I’m leaving out, because I don't know about them, and I apologize for not knowing my history as well as I probably should.but, if these great people, who under Walt’s guidance came up with this amazing attraction, and if Walt himself stated that he was always listening to people and trying to fix things....if these Disney Legends didn't deem it necessary to add a "hi ho America"Or Disney Characters throughout the attraction, WHY IN THE WORLD (small or big) would we think that now was the time to do this?Alot of people will claim it's the "quintessential Mary Blair" piece, and I couldn't agree more..But it's also a great representation of the work of a cast of Disney Legends! I applaud the Blair Family!whether you call their glib attack 'over blown and pompous" or whether you question the integrity of why THIS particular version rather than any of the other "rainforests" my reply to which would be ..."st mary" designed the CA attraction, and helped with the Florida project, I think we are speaking about saving and ORIGINAL WORK OF ART, not some carbon copy that is placed in yet another Disney Park, as for the other parks....Paris, Hong Kong, Tokyo, why NOT have an AMERICA in it...they are NOT on the shores of America after all,...on of the points of the attraction (when it was at the Worlds Fair..AND here in Disneyland CA) is that you were going to the OTHER SHORES, not visiting your own...the Cowboy, and the Indian are the sole representation of America, and that suited everyone just fine!The fact that this argument has to happen is nauseating to me; why not spend the money on a MUCH needed and LONG overdue rehab that actually RESTORES to its original glory, rather than just looking like you took a few extra swipes with the feather duster, and one more quick go around with the vacuum cleaner.to the gentleman (or whatever you want to call him)who referred to Mary Blair's work being improved by another handprint, I bow to the person who stated they could "buy the mona lisa, and paint a set of breasts on her" and that still wouldn't make me an artist" and to the person who said " if a work of art can stand the addition of someone else's handprint merely because it was a 'work for hire' than Michelangelo's Sistine Ceiling is in trouble"perhaps the time has come to go “back to our roots” to really look and LISTEN to what Uncle Walt was talking about, don’t give me the BS about “Disneyland is not a museum” I’m sick to death of “the people” that take Walt’s words and twist them around and fabricate them to make excuses for what they are doing…Walt ALSO said, “I don’t waste my time with sequels” and how many of THOSE have we had to yawn through (I give you Cinderella 2 and 3 and a string of others) maybe if we were more focused on something else Walt said, “you don’t build it for you, you listen to what the people want, and you build it for them” we would re focus our efforts on making the park as amazing a place as it was when the original concept came to fruition….there’s a story that needs to be told here, so “back off and let the story tell itself”….meet me at the magic kingdom of all the world’s children, walt disney’s ‘it’s a small world”

“Quit all the whinning!!! Let Disney do whatever it wants with its park! That's right, the park belongs to the Disney company. They can make the boats bigger for our obese society, and they can redesign the theme, as well. We need more patriotism in this country, in a big way. Disney can be assured that I will maintain my Premium Annual Pass, as I enjoy sharing the magic with my children”

I seem to recall that in the early 80’s, before Eisner and Wells come on board to save the company, that there were actual discussions of selling off the Disneyland property. During that period, the company was suffering and there was little passion for the company’s heritage.

So, you believe that, because it all belonged to the Disney Company, selling off the property would have been a good idea? That they could totally destroy the park if they want? What good would your pass do then?

Sometimes total destruction is slow, over a long period of time. What people here are doing is trying to stem that slow deterioration and help keep the quality level of the parks at least somewhat higher than what other run of the mill parks do, so people like you can enjoy their Premium Annual Passes.

The question is to make progress and at the same time preserve sameness, to continue creative in integrity- to assert creativity, really, as integrity. Like Walt Disney did in bringing back fairy tales, pillars of fantasy in the human psyche, through the dynamism and new dimension he gave animation. But if foundations are corroded, soon the whole edifice will collapse.

This is junk. Absolute junk.Not the letter. The fact that they want to change the ride.This is probably one of the oldest rides in the park, and is pretty much the last classic left. They shouldn't change what has been made a Disney Legacy amongst children and adults (even though the ride can get repetitive amongst us young adults XD).The 21st century is taking over. If they change It's a Small World, then we might as well give up on everything. That ride made history, and history it should keep.

dearest mr blair..your mother's art is amazing. as a disneyland fan i will support your effort in upholding the traditions of disneyland park. as a late imagineering friend told me before he passed--" keep the disneyland spirit alive!" i have tied to do so in my time and will continue to so in my future. SARAH TIPTON..anual passholder

I agree.... I grew up with Dinsey (30+ trips to Disney World and 1 to Disneyland) before I was even 25 years of age! I am 41 now... My favorite Disney attraction has always been The Enchanted Tiki Room (even when it was the orignal name with tropical in it with the orange guy outside!) Yes I went to WDW when it first open... Now I am horrified by the changes they made to the Enchanted Tiki Room in Florida (those at Disneyland saved theirs at least!) and wish in my heart that they would undo the changes or at least have 2 shows (one original and the other new one that I wont add adjectives to) that run on different times of day.

On to the Small World... why mess with a winner? Why doesnt WDW add NEW attractions to the Magic Kingdom, add some additional land that is currently outside the park boundary...I am sure they could collaborate a way to make it happen.

In my opinion, the Magic of Disney is the intermixing with the New and the Old.... where else can Great Grandkids, sit with their Great Grandpa, Grandpa, and Dad, at the SAME attraction and ALL experience it as the magic of being a child? I remember the Enchanted Tiki Room when I was very young, and those where happy magical times of a simpler time when I needed to worry only about what attraction would be next! Riding those same attractions today is the next best thing to a true Time Machine.... Why take that away?

Some traditions need to be upheld and with all of the character interaction throughout the parks, there is a definite need for the message of hope and peace that children WILL always respond too. Injecting characters into these scenes is an insult to the intelligence of the worlds' children by insisting that they cannot have an important experience with out including a pop icon waiting to sell them more merchandise.

Walt had a vision and I think he would want this ride to be updated with modern technology, NOT modern character inclusion.

Please refurbish and recondition the ride and keep the childrens' moment of peace and sanity in tact.

Please for all of the world's children and the children that still live inside the hearts of each and every parent.

Amen to that! What the heck was Disney thinking? I mean, there are places for Disney characters to be but NOT in Small World.And destroying the rainforest for the benefit of America?! Don't we do enough of THAT already? Please, not on small world too!Disney, please leave Small World as it is! It would be much better that way. You've gone too far this time. Sure, you have made some bad additions to classic rides, but this is THE WORST!

Seeing as most of the guests to DLR are going to be from America, I think that a rainforest scene is just so much more interesting than represented the country we're already in. And this attraction is classic Disney WITHOUT adding characters from Disney movies.

I'm stunned that Disney would even consider something like this, especially when they've been on a spree to recapture the magic of the old company. Looks like all the bad apples aren't quite out of the bushel just yet.

I can't believe that Disney has decided to ruin the original Small World. I think that Walt Disney is rolling over in his grave!! Now, I love Disney, but I am FURIOUS with what they are doing with small world!! No words can describe my anger!!!!! I have already gone to City Hall down Main Street at Disneyland and wrote a comment about this, but their excuse was Walt Disney would want this. NO HE WOULDN'T. IT RUINS THE MEANING OF THE RIDE!!! I hope that the ride BOMBS so that they can change it back.